A federal judge gave a nod to several state consumer-rights claims pertaining to warranty and fraud in a class-action lawsuit filed against General Motors regarding its Corvette Z06 vehicles that attorneys say were knowingly sold with a defective cooling system that causes the engine to overheat unexpectedly and makes the car unsuitable for track use, despite the automaker’s promises of a track-proven racecar.

Judge Victoria A. Robert issued the order Mar. 29, 2019 upholding the rights of plaintiffs under various state laws in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington. The 70 remaining claims fall into two major categories: warranty claims and fraud claims.

If you own or lease a 2015-2017 Corvette Z06, you may be entitled to compensation for this defect that inhibits your car’s performance. GM sold more than 30,000 affected Corvette Z06s.

The defect at the center of the lawsuit manifests after less than 15 minutes of track driving, when affected Corvette Z06 models overheat and causes the car to enter limp mode due to a defective cooling system. When the vehicle enters limp mode its power and speed are “drastically reduced,” creating an incredibly dangerous situation when surrounded by other speeding cars, according the lawsuit. Owners report they have experienced limp mode also while on public roadways.

“Accepting as true Plaintiffs’ allegations, the Court finds that Plaintiffs plausibly allege their cars are not fit for the ordinary purpose of providing safe and reliable transportation on public roads and safe and reliable use on race tracks,” the order states.

Judge Robert upheld fraudulent concealment claims, stating, “In fact, accepting as true Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the frequency in which the Z06 overheats and enters Limp Mode when used on the track, and in light of how rigorously Corvette’s chief engineer, Tadge Juechter, said GM track-tests the car, it would be implausible to infer that GM was not aware of the car’s alleged defective cooling system as a result of its testing.” Judge Robert also upheld claims that GM had a duty to disclose the defect and likely had knowledge prior to sale.

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages as well as injunctive relief for GM’s misconduct related to the design, manufacture, marketing, sale and lease of affected vehicles.